Digital BW, The Print

CJ, Group,
Being a long time fun of Italian cityscapes, and landscapes
I can only admire CJ's photographs.  I have to state that IMHO
they are very tasteful, very well composed (what I can't, quite often 
say about
MR. Atkielski's production), and really pleasing.  Interesting subjects,
and a very good execution. I do not care (at all) if they were underexposed
and photoshoped or not because the final effect is what counts and it only
confirms that every stage of the process of creating them was has been
deliberate and not accidental (I have this "incidental" impression 
looking at
a few samples of Mr. Atkielski's).
I have been a professional photographer since 1981.  Most of this time
4x5 shooter (color and some BW), and medium format and 35mm (BW).
Since last year (October) I shoot digital (until last month Fuji S2), 
and now
Canon 1Ds.  I have been to Italy (and lived there for a while) and know that
it's very ease to be overwhelmed by this beautiful country and produce only
kitsch postcard type pictures.  
With that said I praise Mr. CJ's photographs even more.  I like them - 
they are
very different from my way of shooting (you can see my Italian portfolio
in my gallery section of the website), but it doesn't diminish their 
quality.
Regards to all,
Jack

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle


Dennis W. Manasco wrote:

> On Sunday, 29 Nov 2003 at 06:35 PM
>
> "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> wrote:
>
> >>  About half of those (about 60) from that trip are here:
> >>
> >>  http://www.pbase.com/cjmorgan/italy_2003&page=all 
> <http://www.pbase.com/cjmorgan/italy_2003&page=all>
> >
> >  Almost every photo has been deliberately underexposed and heavily
> >Photoshopped.  How come?
>
> (Jeeze! I hate stomping into something like this, especially when the
> purveyor is an obvious troll. BUT, the statement I've quoted above is
> unconscionable.)
>
> I looked through the photographs on Mr. Morgan's site and found them
> not only extraordinarily pleasing but extremely well composed,
> photographed and rendered. If any of them were underexposed it has
> escaped my attention. Indeed, their were several which I would have
> exposed a 3rd of a stop less (and probably been wrong in my
> judgement).
>
> I would appreciate it if Mr. Atkielski would quote us chapter and
> verse on the images which he finds "underexposed." I would also
> appreciate his pointing out those he finds "heavily Photoshopped" and
> explain why he thinks them so.
>
> At 1:50 pm +0100 11/30/03, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
>
> >See http://www.atkielski.com.  I don't know if they are beautiful or
> >not, but I do take pictures regularly.
>
> I also viewed Mr. Atkielski's site. There were not very many images
> to view. Those that I saw were interesting. Sadly, they were also
> often flat and (IMHO) either over, or under, exposed.
>
>
> -=-Dennis
>
>

> From: Jack M Kucy [mailto:jmk@...]
>
> I have been to Italy (and lived there for a while)
> and know that
> it's very ease to be overwhelmed by this beautiful country and
> produce only
> kitsch postcard type pictures.
> With that said I praise Mr. CJ's photographs even more.  I like them -
> they are
> very different from my way of shooting (you can see my Italian portfolio
> in my gallery section of the website), but it doesn't diminish their
> quality.

Very nice stuff in your gallery. I especially like your NYC architectural
shots.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...